Mohamed Sheikh Abdulrahim Al-Maddy v Mohamed Ali, Abdalla Ali, Faiz Ali Taib, Nabhan Swaleh Salim & The Land Registrar Mombasa
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a trustee's land claim because he never owned the property and had signed the very documents he called fraudulent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiff was the owner or registered proprietor of parcel 129
- 2.Whether the 1-4 defendants had illegally and fraudulently sub-divided parcel 129 and sold and transferred some of the resultant subdivisions
- 3.Whether the plaintiff was irregularly or fraudulently removed as a trustee
- 4.Whether the 5th defendant acted negligently in the execution of his duties
- 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit
- 6.Who shall bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff was owner or registered proprietor of parcel 129
The plaintiff was never the owner; the property was acquired and held in trust for the mosque
The letter of protest was addressed to the mosque, the memorandum of sale listed the plaintiff and another as purchasers on behalf of the mosque, and the transfer instrument vested parcel 129 in three named trustees in trust for the mosque. The plaintiff conceded in cross-examination that acquisition negotiations and purchase were done on behalf of the mosque.
Whether the 1st–4th defendants fraudulently sub-divided and dealt with parcel 129
No fraud established; the plaintiff himself executed the impugned documents
A forensic document examiner confirmed the plaintiff signed the disputed sale agreements and transfer instruments. His excuse that he signed without reading or understanding the documents was rejected as neither credible nor reasonable, the court noting the seriousness of alleging fraud while disowning one's own signed documents.
Whether the plaintiff was irregularly or fraudulently removed as trustee
Removal by majority of trustees under the Trust Deed dated 01.05.1988 was not shown to be irregular or fraudulent
The plaintiff disputed the 1988 Trust Deed and denied signing it, but the forensic document examiner confirmed his signature. Having failed to impeach the deed, he could not discharge the burden of proving his removal was irregular, since the removal was effected by a majority of trustees pursuant to that deed.
Whether the 5th defendant (Land Registrar) acted negligently
No negligence; the registrar merely performed statutory duties on transactions not impeached
Since neither fraud in the dealings nor irregularity in the plaintiff's removal was established, the transactions registered by the registrar stand unimpeached. A registrar cannot be liable in negligence for executing statutory duties in respect of transactions the court has not set aside.
Legal principles established
#- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court has good reason to depart from that rule
- A person who signs a document without reading it cannot on that basis alone invalidate the document or escape its effect
- Only a person with an interest in property can complain of fraudulent dealings with it; a non-owner lacks standing to challenge subdivision and transfer
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the 1st – 5th defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land and trusts relating to land (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution; ELC Act)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the 1st–4th defendants from interfering with the suit properties
Plaintiff failed to prove his claim; he was not the owner of parcel 129
Declaration of plaintiff as rightful surviving trustee and adoption of his appointed co-trustees
Plaintiff failed to prove he was irregularly or fraudulently removed as trustee
Orders for surrender of original titles, cancellation of defendants' names, rectification of registers and cancellation of title deeds
No fraud or negligence established against any defendant
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st – 5th defendants, costs following the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
There is no time at which the Plaintiff held or was to hold parcel 129 as his own property.
It is a serious matter to accuse a man of fraud and later on claim that you were mistaken because you did not read or understand the contents of some important documents you signed.
The fact that he may not have bothered to peruse it before signing it would not necessarily render it invalid.
there can be no finding of negligence on the part of the 5 th defendant for simply executing his statutory duties with respect to transactions which have not been impeached by the court.
Consequently, the plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st – 5th defendants. It is so decided.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated and delivered at Thika although the cause is in the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Submissions dates (2026) post-date a 2022 filing by four years, suggesting possible typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohamed Sheikh Abdulrahim Al-Maddy v Mohamed Ali, Abdalla Ali, Faiz Ali Taib, Nabhan Swaleh Salim & The Land Registrar Mombasa", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E104 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5752/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.